TY - JOUR
T1 - Addressing non-response data for standardized post-acute functional items
AU - Li, Chih Ying
AU - Kim, Hyunkyoung
AU - Downer, Brian
AU - Lee, Mi Jung
AU - Ottenbacher, Kenneth
AU - Kuo, Yong Fang
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NICHD/NCMRR: K01HD101589; NIA: K01AG058789). Dr. Ottenbacher (Emeritus Professor) formally a PI for grant (P2C HD065702) from NICHD, NIH. For the remaining authors, none were claimed.
Funding Information:
The authors would like to acknowledge Sarah Toombs Smith, PhD, a board-certified Editor in the Life Sciences (bels.org), at the Sealy Center on Aging, University of Texas Medical Branch, for her assistance in reviewing and editing the manuscript prior to our submission without salary compensation.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2023/9/6
Y1 - 2023/9/6
N2 - Background: The post-acute patient standardized functional items (Section GG) include non-response options such as refuse, not attempt and not applicable. We examined non-response patterns and compared four methods to address non-response functional data in Section GG at nation-wide inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF). Methods: We characterized non-response patterns using 100% Medicare 2018 data. We applied four methods to generate imputed values for each non-response functional item of each patient: Monte Carlo Markov Chains multiple imputations (MCMC), Fully Conditional Specification multiple imputations (FCS), Pattern-mixture model (PMM) multiple imputations and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) approach. We compared changes of Spearman correlations and weighted kappa between Section GG and the site-specific functional items across impairments before and after applying four methods. Results: One hundred fifty-nine thousand six hundred ninety-one Medicare fee-for-services beneficiaries admitted to IRFs with stroke, brain dysfunction, neurologic condition, orthopedic disorders, and debility. At discharge, 3.9% (self-care) and 61.6% (mobility) of IRF patients had at least one non-response answer in Section GG. Patients tended to have non-response data due to refused at discharge than at admission. Patients with non-response data tended to have worse function, especially in mobility; also improved less functionally compared to patients without non-response data. Overall, patients coded as ‘refused’ were more functionally independent in self-care and patients coded as ‘not applicable’ were more functionally independent in transfer and mobility, compared to other non-response answers. Four methods showed similar changes in correlations and agreements between Section GG and the site-specific functional items, but variations exist across impairments between multiple imputations and the CMS approach. Conclusions: The different reasons for non-response answers are correlated with varied functional status. The high proportion of patients with non-response data for mobility items raised a concern of biased IRF quality reporting. Our findings have potential implications for improving patient care, outcomes, quality reporting, and payment across post-acute settings.
AB - Background: The post-acute patient standardized functional items (Section GG) include non-response options such as refuse, not attempt and not applicable. We examined non-response patterns and compared four methods to address non-response functional data in Section GG at nation-wide inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRF). Methods: We characterized non-response patterns using 100% Medicare 2018 data. We applied four methods to generate imputed values for each non-response functional item of each patient: Monte Carlo Markov Chains multiple imputations (MCMC), Fully Conditional Specification multiple imputations (FCS), Pattern-mixture model (PMM) multiple imputations and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) approach. We compared changes of Spearman correlations and weighted kappa between Section GG and the site-specific functional items across impairments before and after applying four methods. Results: One hundred fifty-nine thousand six hundred ninety-one Medicare fee-for-services beneficiaries admitted to IRFs with stroke, brain dysfunction, neurologic condition, orthopedic disorders, and debility. At discharge, 3.9% (self-care) and 61.6% (mobility) of IRF patients had at least one non-response answer in Section GG. Patients tended to have non-response data due to refused at discharge than at admission. Patients with non-response data tended to have worse function, especially in mobility; also improved less functionally compared to patients without non-response data. Overall, patients coded as ‘refused’ were more functionally independent in self-care and patients coded as ‘not applicable’ were more functionally independent in transfer and mobility, compared to other non-response answers. Four methods showed similar changes in correlations and agreements between Section GG and the site-specific functional items, but variations exist across impairments between multiple imputations and the CMS approach. Conclusions: The different reasons for non-response answers are correlated with varied functional status. The high proportion of patients with non-response data for mobility items raised a concern of biased IRF quality reporting. Our findings have potential implications for improving patient care, outcomes, quality reporting, and payment across post-acute settings.
KW - Critical care outcomes
KW - Functional status
KW - Health care
KW - Health services administration
KW - Medicare payment advisory commission
KW - Mobility
KW - Outcome and process assessment
KW - Patient outcome assessment
KW - Self-care
KW - Subacute care
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85169998868&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85169998868&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/s12913-023-09982-8
DO - 10.1186/s12913-023-09982-8
M3 - Article
C2 - 37674152
AN - SCOPUS:85169998868
SN - 1472-6963
VL - 23
JO - BMC Health Services Research
JF - BMC Health Services Research
IS - 1
M1 - 955
ER -